It was an interesting week in American politics, with John Edwards officially endorsing Barack Obama. Of course, this meant that should Obama gain the nomination, Hillary automatically loses the chance at vice-presidency. Well, that was my impression all the way down here where I live.
I have no idea how the election campaigns are carried out, how votes are weighed, or everything else that comes with the grand roadshow that is the presidential campaign, but it has been interesting to catch glimpses of it via ABC news (4am my time), and one of the subjects of interest was the 'race vote,' or votes based on race. The word 'race' is seldom used in Australia, and on a more scientific viewpoint, race is more a concept than a reality. Ethnicity is a better choice of word, whereas race tends to focus on visible differences. But one of the subjects this week on ABC news was the 'race vote' or the reality of people voting based on race, and it's a valid discussion point. Many people vote based on a politician's 'look' or the visible impression the politician gives.
Housemate, for example, didn't vote for Kevin Rudd, because (in his view), 'he looks like an idiot,' (based on speeches, expression, arguments and body language) and now, with the latest screw up involving Medicare (after the Australian budget and the current government's underestimation), one can be heartened to know that Australia's new government is quite inept at preparing a budget. But even so, this doesn't justify the looks argument, and it's not really about looks but body language, self-expression, deft arguments and intelligent debate - and qualifications. One thing is certain though, we don't have grand political road shows (campaigns) that travel through each state, because we are a constitutional monarchy, and have few states, but if we did have an indigenous or (visibly) ethnic PM candidate, we would enter the 'race vote' or votes based on ethnicity.
I think what surprised me (even though it didn't, due to Hillary's shambolic run, everything from the sniper fire episode, to her most recent excuse to continue going – 'for the sisterhood.'), was Edward's entering the scene. I somehow think that Hillary is still hopeful, even though the statistics indicate that she won't get the nomination, and that endorsing Obama would have meant abandoning the top job – something she doesn't desire. For her, it's the top job or nothing, which says a lot about her ambition.
I don't want to reveal who I think will win, because it may upset a few people, but I think that Hillary's run is over, and the 'race issue' is still a real issue for certain voters. And I also think that basing some part of a campaign on the Sisterhood reason is a sign of desperation. One of the negatives of the democrat campaign, the trite remarks between Obama and Clinton, was the schoolyard bickering. After all, they belong in the same political party, and such division always looks bad.
The argument of change being 'good' is often used. It was used after Iraq, during many political campaigns. Here in Australia, the majority voted for 'change,' without really thinking about the possible consequences, or delving into the ability of the contenders for the top prize. Now, after Australia based its vote on change, the federal budget is raising question marks, and one of the most significant developments, one that will affect health care. I may be forward in saying it, but health care is more important than subsidizing ISP's and telcos to develop Internet filters. Voting for 'change,' to me, is silly when it is based on superficialities. Voting should always be about the person who is better able to get the job done. In Australia's case, Peter Costello was always the better option, but the top treasury job went to Wayne Swan. The surplus that exists isn't due to the current government, it is due to the previous government, but many pro-Rudd acolytes don't discuss it, and there are going to be many changes with this new government, many of which won't be positive in the long run.
Recent Comments